These are a familiar sight to pilots. (AP Photo/The Advocate,Travis Spradling)

(Newser)
–
Air travelers appear to have a genuine new problem to fret about: small drones. The FAA has logged 25 close calls with planes since June 1, reports the Washington Post. By "close call," it means an instance in which a drone "came within a few seconds or a few feet of crashing into much larger aircraft." Most of the incidents took place near New York City or Washington while planes were either landing or taking off. Just one example: Air traffic controllers say Republic Airlines Flight 6230 was “almost hit” by a small drone at 4,000 feet as it was descending toward LaGuardia.

The newly released figures show that sightings by pilots at airports are close to an everyday occurrence now: The FAA says it gets about 25 reports a month from pilots of drones in restricted air space. The numbers are rising quickly as small, camera-equipped drones surge in popularity among hobbyists. Exhibit A: GoPro, which has made its name selling wearable video cams for athletes, plans to start selling helicopter-style drones in the $500 to $1,000 range next year, reports the Wall Street Journal.

the areas one can use these things are already in place.many local governments have restrictions,including most urban areas. one needs the permission of the land owner before over flying in many places. there are restricted areas around air ports,harbors,military bases and,government facilities. there are height restrictions where there is any possibility of interfering with air traffic.contact local R/C plane or Rocket hobbyist's if in doubt. interfering with air traffic is already a criminal act and should be prosecuted as such.

Daniel Brown

Nov 28, 2014 2:41 PM CST

Even if a consumer drone hit an airplane big whoop. They test the planes by throwing turkeys into the jet intakes so a drone is just going to go munch. Anywhere else is a bounce.

copturnedjournalist

Nov 27, 2014 1:13 AM CST

"Air traffic controllers say Republic Airlines Flight 6230 was “almost hit” by a small drone at 4,000 feet as it was descending toward LaGuardia." I smell a pile of bovine cah-cah here. The average radio-controlled helicopter ("drone") has a range of 300 to 500 meters from its controller. (See details on one of the most popular models, the DJI Phantom 2 here: http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-2-vision/feature.) Convert 300 to 500 meters and you get a 984 to 1,640 foot range. Outside those limits, the drones a programmed to use GPS to "return home" or to move back toward the last known location where they had a signal. That means the only thing a pilot approaching LaGuardia saw at 4,000 feet was another plane, a weather balloon, or a military UAV that conveniently forgot to report its presence to the civilian air traffic controllers. I'm not the biggest conspiracy theorist on Newser by a long shot. But, because I still work part time in law enforcement - I know there is widespread dislike of these "drones" because they allow the public to video officers without the officers knowing they are on camera. Personally, I don't care if you record me from the moment I go on duty until I leave to go home - as long as you protect the privacy of the citizens I interact with while I'm on duty. I'm the taxpayers' employee and I've got nothing to hide. But, sadly, some cops like to bend rules and push boundaries because it makes the job much easier to do. And flying video cameras that they don't know are present are NOT their friend. So, whenever I hear the "danger to aircraft" argument about camera-equipped RC aircraft, my BS detector goes into overdrive. Yes, we need some rules to protect people's privacy on private property, and to prevent injuries and property damage from recklessly operated "drones." But we absolutely do NOT need a ban on them, nor should the NTSB or FAA be involved in this in any way, UNLESS a specific drone operator is flying across state lines for commercial gain. Otherwise, the feds have zero jurisdiction.